COVID-19 tests the elasticity of public schooling

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

Catastrophic events are stress tests for the systems affected.  COVID-19 has certainly tested many: health care capacity and delivery; public and private care for the elderly; viability of large and small retail businesses; the seemingly endless growth of real estate values; “just in time” supply chains; and the development and testing of new drugs.

The final results of the COVID-19 stress test will not be in for a long time, but it has already revealed the inhumanity of an economy that depends on low-wage and contract labour and the immorality of a trade-off that someone described as “dying for the Dow.”

COVID-19 has tested the elasticity of contemporary public schooling. As I have argued, online learning has proven to be a failed natural experiment for most students, increasing inequalities between learners with advantages and those with disadvantages. COVID-19 has reminded everyone – especially parents – of the importance of the custodial function of schools.  

It is not possible to know the consequence of all stress-tests in advance of their occurrence. But it is a certainty that the consequences will be devastating if you never ask (and attempt to answer) a few key questions. What kind of stresses can the publicly funded system withstand? For how long can the system withstand those stresses? What action can we take to avoid the stress or to mitigate its impact of it occurs?

We have not explicitly asked “how long can parents cope with an unplanned school closure?” But we know the answer. Parents can cope during planned school closures precisely because they are known in advance. They can arrange with other care-givers for the supervision and care of their children during regularly occurring breaks in schooling. However, when labour conflict disrupts schooling, even sympathetic parents find it challenging after a few weeks.

COVID-19 has helped to answer the question “how much instructional flexibility can reasonably be expected of teachers?” “Fitting education to the needs of the learner” has been a slogan in education for more than a century. Today, the notion is expressed as personalized learning. Consider, for example, this passage about flexible learning environments from the curriculum section of the British Columbia Ministry of Education website:

Learning can take place anywhere, not just in classrooms. Many schools and teachers create learning environments that explore the use of time and space in creative ways. The integration of areas of learning and technology also have opened the door for teachers and schools to approach the use of time and space in creative ways – ways that adapt to students’ needs and interests.

Although the learning standards are described within areas of learning, there is no requirement for teachers to organize classrooms, schools or instruction in this manner. In effect, the Ministry of Education defines the “what” to teach but not the “how” to organize the time, space or methods to teach it.

COVID-19 was a stress-test for personalized, flexible learning. Some teachers “passed” the stress test COVID-19 imposed, but not that many and certainly not all teachers. Many teachers said they felt they were failing their kids and their families because they were unprepared for the situation into which they were thrust. COID-19 was catastrophic and, thus, unprecedented – at least in our lifetimes.

The fact that so few teachers believed that they were prepared is a failure of the system that we should have known about. Let me be clear: It was not a failure of the individual teachers; it was a failure of the system. And, it was one we should have anticipated.

We have known that “fitting education to the needs of the learner” is the promise of individualization in the context of a system of mass education. It is the promise that a system of mass education can provide to each student with the instruction that was provided to the children of the wealthy as individuals or in small groups by masters or tutors. It was an educational slight-of-hand like promising farmers higher prices for their crops while providing consumers with low-cost produce.

Does mass education mean that education cannot be fitted to the needs of learners? No, it does not. The key questions are: How much and what kind of difference in instruction can be accommodated? What are the necessary pre-conditions to providing such instruction?

One part of the answer is that teachers must have prior preparation in planning for as much individualization as the conditions under which they work allow. The preparation and conditions would need to be much different if our conception of ‘personalisation’ in our publicly-supported system of mass-education is equivalent to the education that children of wealthy parents could provide by hiring tutors or masters.

The conception of ‘personalization’ is not appropriate for public education. It suggests that the primary beneficiaries of education are individuals, but that is not true. The primary beneficiary of public education is the society. That is why we spend the taxes we collect from everyone, whether they have children or not, on public schools – to ensure that our society continues and improves. Of course, we ensure society’s continuity by improving individuals but by emphasizing what they have in common, not what distinguishes one from another.

Education has always been personalized to some extent. Special needs students receive programs that consider their needs. Elementary school students make limited choices that reflect their interests. The courses offered at the secondary school level are evidence of the wide variety of opportunities available to high school students to personalize their learning.

The elasticity of all systems is limited. We can and should consider learner needs and interests. But to do that honestly, we must acknowledge the primary purpose of a public-funded system and the limits that such a system imposes. The elasticity of public education does not extend to personalizing students’ learning. We didn’t need a crisis to grasp that.

Why are my taxes paying for private club memberships?

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos sparked outrage when she funneled COVID-19 relief funding intended for public institutions to private and religious schools. DeVos gave a broad interpretation (policy guidance) to the relief bill that, by the time you read this, will likely have been narrowed through Congressional action and public pressure.

For nearly fifty years, British Columbians have been subsidizing private and religious schools as a matter of public policy, but to date there has been no public objection. British Columbia is not alone. Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Quebec have policies to provide funding to private schools as a matter of policy.

Policy is the mechanism democratic societies use to allocate scarce public resources. If the resource supply were unlimited, you would have no need for policy; you could just drop by and take what you want. By setting public policy, our elected officials make difficult choices about how our scarce resources will be spent on health care, education, housing, sanitation, water, etc.  Not all resource allocation decisions are well considered, but once decided they are often hard to reverse.

Since the late 1970s, British Columbia has been subsidizing the education of students whose parents prefer that they be educated in private schools. Today, the subsidies amount to more than $300,000,000 per year. It is not the amount of money to which I object, though the amount is not trivial. I object to my taxes paying for memberships to private clubs to which access is restricted.

Private schools in British Columbia call themselves independent schools. They are independent only in the sense that they can choose who does and does not attend. Public schools are open to everyone.

Subsidies to parents whose children attend private schools are inequitable. According to Statistics Canada, when private school students are compared with their public-school peers, they are more likely to live in families with two biological parents whose higher income affords such advantages as more computers and books in the home.

The public policy question is: Do we (all citizens) want our scarce tax dollars paying for something available only to a specific group? I think not.

Private schools in British Columbia work to defend their subsidized status by fueling public concern about the increased cost that will be incurred if the students in private school returned to public schools. That is like a private golf club arguing that, if it is not subsidized, it will close and all its members will go to the public golf course, making it more difficult to get a tee-time and more expensive to maintain the greens.  

Private school advocates often frame the issue as one of parental choice about the education their children receive. Parents are certainly free to choose private schools, but they should not be free to use my taxes or yours to subsidize their choices.

Let me put it another way: There is a perfectly good tennis court at the publicly funded community centre near my home. But if I would prefer to play at a private tennis club would you help pay for my membership in that private tennis club?

I didn’t think so.

Reversing the 40 year old subsidy policy will take strong political will to withstand the inevitable and intense lobbying by private schools and their supporters. However, a reasoned and thoughtful campaign in favour of the change by supporters of public schools should be able to sway public sentiment.

I think it is time that we stopped subsidizing the private club memberships for a small, relatively more advantaged, segment of the population.

COVID-19 was a failed natural experiment in online schooling

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia
 [permission to reproduce if authorship is acknowledged]

Natural experiments are observational studies of the impact of an event conducted during and afterward, focussing on differences among groups. They differ markedly from true experiments in which individuals are randomly assigned to an experimental group and a control group. The experimental group is exposed to some treatment (a new drug, for example) and the control group is not.

Coincidentally, one of the most famous natural experiments was conducted after a cholera epidemic by John Snow (famous at least among epidemiologists). Water to a region in London was supplied by two different companies. During the cholera epidemic of 1849, the two companies supplied their water from the same polluted region of the Thames, producing similar death rates.  By the time cholera returned in 1853, one of the companies had changed its source of water, creating the condition for a natural experiment. Snow mapped the outbreaks of cholera in 1853 and traced its recurrence to the water supplied by the company still obtaining it from the polluted region of the Thames.

The COVID-19 pandemic has produced a natural experiment in online learning, though not exactly like the cholera epidemic in London. Online learning during COVID-19 has had a markedly different impact on different populations. Statistics Canada data show that the burdens of access to equipment, technology and support fall heaviest upon lower income households. These households have a disproportionate share of students who will have the greatest difficulty making up lost earning time, compounding the existing inequalities.

Students in homes that were relatively well-equipped with a computer and decent bandwidth were able to access the educational material. Obviously that material, and the support teachers were providing, were not available to students in homes with no or little equipment or internet access.

No one considered the online experiences as a substitute for face-to-face instruction or contact between students and teachers. However, one of the unintended but real consequences of online learning was to exacerbate the inequalities that face-to-face schooling tries to eliminate.

Even in homes with equipment and internet there was competition between parents who needed the equipment and bandwidth for working at home and their children who needed them for school. Families with the luxury of time were better able to monitor and assist their children. The differences among all students intensified.  Of course, these were not the only differences in the environments in which students were expected to learn online. Many students do not have a quiet space at home and/or parents who can help them when they struggle with a task. There are students who are on their own because their parents must work outside the home.

Teachers struggled. Many had little or no experience with online learning, video-conferencing equipment, and the content management systems that school boards made available but for which little training was available. Ever resourceful, many resorted to other online resources for help and one another for support. But most teachers were on their own in terms of what and how they planned for, and made use of, online ‘learning.’

There are lessons to be learned from the natural experiment in online learning. It is obvious, the introduction of any new practice or technology requires significant planning. Of course, no one anticipated the abrupt shift to online communication (I resist calling it learning). Those contemplating further use of internet technologies must have a plan for doing so. The COVID-19 online experience makes me wonder if Ontario will rethink requiring mandatory online coursework for secondary students.

It is important to ensure that the conditions for using the technology are favourable. Inequalities in equipment and bandwidth are not acceptable conditions. Requiring teachers to figure things out for themselves is unacceptable. They need preparation for using any new practice or technology.

Teachers should not be preparing on their own. Most teacher unions have sub-sets of teachers organized by grade level or subject. These are often called professional specialist groups or something similar. The membership of these groups is often leaders in the sub-specialty. These groups should work with teachers who have significant experience working with technology and distributed learning to prepare the material that will be used if there is a return to online learning.

If online learning continues, adjustment would be required to the traditional relationship between teachers and students, one that is presently based upon a single teacher working with a group of students (usually grouped by age) based on grade level or subject. This arrangement places enormous pressure on teachers working in conventional face-to-face environments. Online environments increase the pressure exponentially. Online learning (and face-to-face learning) would likely be enhanced if teachers were encouraged to collaborate with one another and have collective responsibility for groups of students. Online learning as it is presently practiced places unreasonable demands upon teachers and poses major challenges that could affect long-term student development.

COVID-19 is likely to recur in the fall and perhaps after. There are steps that can be taken to improve on the largely negative experience. There were many admirable efforts to address inequalities in access by providing computers and free or relatively inexpensive internet. But significant inequalities remain that must be diminished. That will be costly at any time, but they will be an additional burden in the aftermath of the huge expenditures that governments have made during the first wave of COVID-19.

The cost of improving the online experience of students, teachers, and families will need to be weighed against rescheduling schooling to make up the learning time lost by closing schools.  Closing schools during what is likely to be another COVID-19 wave (declaring them ‘unplanned school holidays’) might be preferable on several grounds. Rescheduling schooling as often happens in climates where schools are closed because of weather is much less costly than gearing up for more and improved online learning.

Because it will be difficult to ‘gear up’ before another wave occurs, the inequalities produced by the first wave of COVID-19 are very likely to persist and, thus, be worsened by resorting to the use of internet technologies to address school closures. Rescheduling face-to-face instruction is likely to be more favourable from an educational standpoint because it would not aggravate educational inequalities to the same extent as the hodgepodge that was characteristic of the response to the first COVID-19 wave.   

I belong to the “plan for the worst and hope for the best” school of public policy. I hope there is not a second wave of COVID-19. However, planning for school closures in the event of a second wave of COVID-19 is preferable to repeating the failed natural experiment in online learning during COVID’s first wave that has worsened the educational inequalities that schooling tries to eliminate.

Why school boards fail to comply with their own policies

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

On November 27, 2019 The Ontario Minister of Education appointed a review team to investigate anti-Black racism and discrimination; lack of cooperation among trustees and between them and the Director of Education; board performance; hiring and promotion policies and practices; workplace equity; the handling of grievances and complaints; and a suite of governance issues in the Peel District School Board. In February 2020, the Minister received the Review of the Peel District School Board. Notwithstanding the formality of the language used in such reports, it was scathing. In March 2020, the Minister issued 27 directions to the Board and on April 28th appointed an investigator to determine whether the Peel board was carrying them out.

The problems that prompted the review of the Peel Board go well beyond their failure to govern effectively, but its failure to govern is among the key problems the board faces. Among the 27 directions, the Minister ordered the Board to engage the services of an external governance expert to “establish procedures and practices for effective, respectful, and transparent governance” and create a permanent position “to provide professional governance advisory services and support to the Board.”

School board trustees usually have no training in governance prior to their election to school boards. However, not long after they take office, the boards to which they have been elected and the provincial professional associations of school boards typically offer governance training. The Ontario Public School Boards Association, for example, offers a suite of 21 modules devoted to various aspects of governance. But the report of the team that reviewed the Peel Board noted:

All trustees acknowledged that they received inadequate training in bylaws, Code of Conduct and key PDSB policies and procedures, and they continue to struggle with the distinction between governance and Board operations. The ability of the Board of Trustees to effectively govern has been limited by the failure of the PDSB to provide a comprehensive orientation for newly elected trustees, as well ongoing professional development and governance advice and support (p. 23-24).

Inadequate preparation and professional development are just two of the reasons that school boards fail to comply with their own policies. Policies are central to effective governance. Students and staff suffer when trustees fail to govern in accordance with their policies, and the public loses confidence in the school system.

Preparation alone is not the only reason why boards fail to govern according to their policies. School trustees too often do not know their own policies and, therefore, do not monitor the impact of those policies. A school board that fails to enforce its own policies in effect has no policies. As the review report makes clear, knowledge of governance is essential for effective governance. Trustee orientations and professional development are essential. Most school board associations do offer new-trustee-orientations and a suite of professional learning opportunities for trustees. 

Even trustees who are knowledgeable about the policies by which they are supposed to govern often fail because they do not monitor compliance with policy or cannot distinguish compliance from non-compliance. Case studies are useful in exploring the intricacies of compliance and non-compliance. However, they are only helpful to trustees in school boards that monitor policy implementation and impact by using metrics and measurement wisely.

There are, of course, trustees who can distinguish compliance from non-compliance but choose not to identify non-compliance in the hope that it will not recur.  “If I overlook what is happening, maybe it won’t happen again.” The head-in-the-sand approach usually does not work. Policy non-compliance has impact. Breach of fiduciary responsibility, discrimination, employment standards violations are just a few of many consequences of looking the other way.

Some school boards have ignored policy non-compliances because they fear that identifying the problems will undermine the public’s confidence in the Board. If anyone is inclined to think that is a successful strategy, they should read the Peel report.

Some trustees rely on the Board Chair to identify non-compliance in the mistaken belief or understanding that the identification of non-compliance is the Chair’s responsibility. It is not. Identification of non-compliance is a responsibility of the Board (not just the Chair) and must be a Board decision.

Non-compliance sometimes arises because a trustee fails to adhere to the Board’s trustee code of conduct. When that kind of non-compliance occurs, and the board members fail to uphold the Chair when the Chair identifies non-compliance, it undermines the authority and integrity of the entire board. Board members must realize that, in such circumstances, the chair is acting on behalf of the Board (not as an individual board member). Failing to uphold the chair’s ruling that a code of conduct violation has occurred threatens the integrity of the entire board.

Judgments about policy compliance and non-compliance, whether about codes-of-conduct or other board policies, should not be made for partisan advantage. It is unfortunate that they sometimes are. That, too, impeaches the integrity of the Board and undermines the public’s confidence in the school district.

The current investigation is just another plot-point in the drama unfolding in Peel. In the meantime, Peel students and parents are being victimized by the drama. Good governance is no mystery, but its absence will cause serious damage for students, parents, the wider community, the morale of employees, and the public’s confidence in the educational system.